What scholars call “civil religion” was much on display during the second Obama inauguration. It is argued that such civil religion is very important for the common good of the nation, but it can also become a threat to that common good. It can legitimize corruption and abuses even as it impedes critical discussion and debate about them.

America’s “civil religion” was on parade at the inauguration – in the music, the invocations and benedictions, and repeated references to God and faith and hope in almost every speech. Perhaps even more, the joyful yet reverent spirit of the crowd embodied and affirmed civil religion – even as it brought together citizens from diverse religions and people of no religious belief.

The idea that nations have a civic “religion” is central to most classical political philosophy. It more recently became the subject of academic controversy in response to sociologist Robert Bellah’s now classic 1967 essay, “Civil Religion in America,” and his subsequent book. “The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial (1975).” Bellah later told me that by the mid-1980s he’d stopped using the term “civil religion” because it was too often misunderstood. But he never stopped affirming the reality which becomes so evident on public occasions like inaugurations.

Though some speakers at the inauguration invoked the name of Jesus and oaths were sworn on the Jewish-Christian Bible, the civil religion of which Bellah wrote is neither Christian nor Jewish. Nor is it Muslim, Buddhist, Native American, or the faith of any other formal religious tradition, though it probably could not be sustained without their contributions to the fabric of American society and politics.

Civil religion, in other words, is not an explicitly religious faith as the term “religion” is usually understood. For it can, indeed must, be shared by people of many religions and by non-religious people. It essentially involves a deep and shared trust in the fundamental good of the nation, faith in its general purposes and a sense that a larger or “sacred” power both guides and judges those purposes. As such it not only allows for major religious differences within the nation, but also for strong disagreements about specific politics and programs.

Civil religion constitutes, in one famous image, a “sacred canopy” over the life of a nation that gives important sacral legitimation to national purpose and practice. Yet, like all forms of faith, it can at once affirm and legitimize many good things, but also things not so good. Indeed, it can even bless serious evils and thereby protect them from vigorous scrutiny and criticism. It can thereby also distort the practice and beliefs of the traditional religions.

That latter problem (the subversion of traditional religion to serve dubious and even evil national policies and programs) has always been a serious concern for thoughtful religious leaders.

I recently heard the head of the National Rifle Association say: “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Really? Does he really believe that?

From a religious point of view, such a statement seems to me somewhat heretical at the very least, if not idolatrous. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? If someone believes that, then they believe that a gun is the only thing ensuring that good will prevail, in which case the gun is their god.

A gun does not and cannot ensure that good will prevail. It does help one to understand the hysteria around the prospect of having your god — I mean your gun — confiscated.

If like me, however, you do NOT believe that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun– or suspect that a good guy with a gun might possibly even make a situation more dangerous, depending on how much training she or he has — it might leave you pondering the relative pros and cons of having a gun. Once it is established that the gun is not god, then one can consider if there are other, perhaps better ways, through which God can work and good prevail.

I do believe in the right of individuals to possess guns in order to protect themselves, their families and their homes. That doesn’t mean I approve of it — it just means I acknowledge their right to do so. I guess that makes me a supporter of the Second Amendment. Does that mean that I believe in the right to own and carry any kind of weapon I choose whenever and wherever I choose? Of course not. A constitutional right is not an absolute, unequivocal right.

The Constitution is not the Word of God either. None of our constitutional rights is absolute and unconditional — not free speech, not the right of assembly, not freedom of religion. We place restrictions — and always have — on all of those rights. These restrictions are determined through our democratic process not to violate the spirit of the Constitution.

Where is your moral compass pointing? What are your social values? Hark will explore faith, morals, ethics and character at the intersection of religion ethics, culture, politics, media, science, education, economics and philosophy. At times this blog will alert readers to breaking news and trends. At times it will attempt to look more deeply into intriguing subjects. Hark means to listen attentively, and we will, as readers talk back to the news.